[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData
Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:37:19 -0800
I'm +1 too, but I can't vote...
If you can put anything at the end of an <resourceRef>, then it doesn't make
sense to restrict a <resourceData> to PCDATA -- even without use-cases, this
What makes sense for me then, is to allow XTM to play well with the current
state-of-the-art, which is any XML + namespaces. Why do so many people
dislike namespaces? They let me say what I mean, unambigiously -- with my
own custom XML applications or using RDF.
Instead of new XTM tags to indicate content <resourceXML>, <resourceBase64>,
you could establish PSIs to use as occurrence types:
http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#base64, other wise a processor would
assume PCDATA -- wasn't there someone doing PSIs for mime-types?
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:email@example.com]
| Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:02 AM
| To: firstname.lastname@example.org
| Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData
| * Patrick Durusau
| | +1 on full XML. XHTML is simply too limiting.
| Seems like there is near-consensus on this, then.
| | Do think there needs to be a mechanism by which I can indicate what
| | is required to make sense of the data.
| I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. What is required to
| make sense of XML data? And how would you include it? Is this really
| an XML issue and not a topic map issue?
| | Namespaces carry their own problems and I would not suggest them
| | unless we cannot find an acceptable alternative.
| I don't love namespaces any more than you do, but I don't think we can
| avoid them. If we are going to do XML we have to include the warts.
| | Suggestion: Let's discuss what we want to do, separate and apart
| | from current solutions and then evaluate the pluses and minuses of
| | any proposed solution. Prefer that over starting from a solution and
| | making our needs fit it.
| I think Jim and Eric have described the use cases pretty well already,
| and I added some more in one of my replies to Murray. I think that
| list covers most of the known use cases for this functionality.
| If people want I can make sure Graham and I include a section on these
| use cases in the document with the proposal for how to represent this
| in the DM.
| Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
| GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL:
| http://www.garshol.priv.no >
| sc34wg3 mailing list